What's so bad about living in sin?

[Anonymous]

All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view people who live in sin as low class.

Pretty much. It's not even a statement about them, really, but higher classes have a higher rate of marriage. It stands to reason that people will see you as lower class for not marrying.

The only people who rate your "class" based on your marital status are classless people. You can consider yourself high class based on your income...but that doesn't mean you have any class at all. And this is a perfect example

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view people who live in sin as low class.

Pretty much. It's not even a statement about them, really, but higher classes have a higher rate of marriage. It stands to reason that people will see you as lower class for not marrying.

The only people who rate your "class" based on your marital status are classless people. You can consider yourself high class based on your income...but that doesn't mean you have any class at all. And this is a perfect example

What are you talking about? Numerous studies have shown the that more wealthy and educated you are, the more likely you are to be married.

That's about income, not class. By identifying a particular group by class instead of income, you come across as snobby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

"One foot out the door"

Way to generalize. Doesn't say much for married couples where one partner is out fucking some other person on the side.

Marriage is just bullshit that religious folk came up with. It doesn't change a thing between two people in a relationship....nor should it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view people who live in sin as low class.

Pretty much. It's not even a statement about them, really, but higher classes have a higher rate of marriage. It stands to reason that people will see you as lower class for not marrying.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

"One foot out the door"

Way to generalize. Doesn't say much for married couples where one partner is out fucking some other person on the side.

Marriage is just bullshit that religious folk came up with. It doesn't change a thing between two people in a relationship....nor should it.

Aw, and your own generalizations aren't full of inaccuracies, prejudice and stunning ignorance are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

"One foot out the door"

Way to generalize. Doesn't say much for married couples where one partner is out fucking some other person on the side.

Marriage is just bullshit that religious folk came up with. It doesn't change a thing between two people in a relationship....nor should it.

Aw, and your own generalizations aren't full of inaccuracies, prejudice and stunning ignorance are they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I view people who live in sin as low class.

Pretty much. It's not even a statement about them, really, but higher classes have a higher rate of marriage. It stands to reason that people will see you as lower class for not marrying.

The only people who rate your "class" based on your marital status are classless people. You can consider yourself high class based on your income...but that doesn't mean you have any class at all. And this is a perfect example

What are you talking about? Numerous studies have shown the that more wealthy and educated you are, the more likely you are to be married.

That's about income, not class. By identifying a particular group by class instead of income, you come across as snobby.

You can define it any way you'd like. But people view you a certain way for not being married, because of the statistics of who gets married and who doesn't.

I'm not the poster who originally said it's low class, by the way. I'm just explaining why they, and a lot of other people, see it that way.

Educated, wealthy, white people get married. Lower educated, low income minorities don't. It's not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You can define it any way you'd like. But people view you a certain way for not being married, because of the statistics of who gets married and who doesn't.

I'm not the poster who originally said it's low class, by the way. I'm just explaining why they, and a lot of other people, see it that way.

Educated, wealthy, white people get married. Lower educated, low income minorities don't. It's not rocket science.

I guess you've never seen the show "My Big Fat Redneck Wedding" then.

Last I checked, lower income people get married all the time.

And you have to be pretty shallow to judge a person based on their marital status.. When a couple tells me they aren't married, I don't think twice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You can define it any way you'd like. But people view you a certain way for not being married, because of the statistics of who gets married and who doesn't.

I'm not the poster who originally said it's low class, by the way. I'm just explaining why they, and a lot of other people, see it that way.

Educated, wealthy, white people get married. Lower educated, low income minorities don't. It's not rocket science.

I guess you've never seen the show "My Big Fat Redneck Wedding" then.

Last I checked, lower income people get married all the time.

And you have to be pretty shallow to judge a person based on their marital status.. When a couple tells me they aren't married, I don't think twice.

Fine. I'll spell it out for you. You'll have to accept articles about the studies, because I'm not looking up the studies for you.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/10/06/Pew.reversal.college.marriage.gap/index.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-05-02/news/ct-x-0502-marriage-study-20120502_1_college-educated-women-black-women-college-education

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/?_r=0

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the reasons said in this thread before.

Also, I'm very happy that the financial and legal rights afforded to married couples exist, and I'm happy that those financial and legal rights do not apply to unmarried cohabiting couples.

Why? Because those financial and legal rights lend a sense of permanence to the living arrangement. It means that you are one unit, one household, one family. An unmarried couple rarely intends to be perceived as a family. Mostly the reason they're unmarried is because they always have one foot out the door, not because they have religious objections to marriage. (I hate that this OP makes marriage a religious issue - it's not).

I never made it a religious issue. My point is that it isn't up to you to define what a real family is. It isn't up to you to decide what the rules are.
Marriage means that you get some tax and legal benefits. It doesn't mean that your relationship is more important or permanent than someone else's.

Yeah...it does actually. Making financial and legal commitments to another person means your intertwining your life with theirs in a way that is very difficult and expensive to extricate yourself from. That's called commitment. That's called permanence, in fact. Nobody is arguing that some marriages are made for the wrong reasons or some marriages don't last but at the same time, nobody in their right mind is going to argue that your average LTR couple is more likely to define themselves as a family than your average married couple.

It's permanent until it isn't. My longterm boyfriend IS my family, whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter how you classify it.
Marriage is reversible. My partner and I are as committed to each other as you are to your husband/wife. You can't make these generalizations.

NP here. If you have actually gone through all the legal hoopla to make it as close to legalities conferred in marriage like named beneficiary for each other's retirement savings and have wills naming each other as beneficiaries and have joint accounts and debts and have the documents to make life or death medical decisions if the other person is incapacitated and have a fair division should you split up ...then I will agree. I'll be honest it wasn't until I did estate planning that I realized how much trust legally speaking you put in your spouse versus a boyfriend. That said, there may be plenty of reasons you don't want that level of legal intertwining. As a PP mentioned if I'm older I probably have more to lose by getting married.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Marriage is reversible.

Legally, perhaps.